Hey, Can A Woman "Ask To Get Raped"?

Most people. both women and men, don't want to have to deal with unwanted sexual advances or pressures in the workplace, they go to work to do their jobs.

WASHINGTON — Thousands of sexual assaults that occur in the United States every year are not reflected in the federal government’s yearly crime report because the report uses an archaic definition of rape that is far narrower than the definitions used by most police departments.


Many law enforcement officials and advocates for women say that this underreporting misleads the public about the prevalence of rape and results in fewer federal, state and local resources being devoted to catching rapists and helping rape victims.

“The public has the right to know about the prevalence of crime and violent crime in our communities, and we know that data drives practices, resources, policies and programs,” said Carol Tracy, executive director of the Women’s Law Project in Philadelphia, whose office has campaigned to get the F.B.I. to change its definition of sexual assault. “It’s critical that we strive to have accurate information about this.”

Ms. Tracy spoke at a meeting in Washington on Friday, organized by the Police Executive Research Forum, that brought together police chiefs, sex-crime investigators, federal officials and advocates to discuss the limitations of the federal definition and the wider issue of local police departments not adequately investigating rape.

The standard that there should be no unwanted sexual advance is an abuse of our individual rights to make sexual advances.

There is no "right" to bully or harass another person. You have no right to persist in behaviors which others find to be unwanted, or intrusive, or offensive, when directed at them. People have the right to be protected from the harmful or unwanted behavior of others toward them, and our legal system reflects that. You have no "right" to make harassing phone calls to people, you have no "right" to stalk them, you cannot do many things that infringe on other peoples' civil rights.

Firefly no male is going to know ahead of time if a woman is or is not interested in him making a sexual advance on her or not.

If the poor woman poster here had a sexual past of child abused and therefore can not give the approaching males a no signal that is not the males fault no matter how regrettable it happen to be.

o one has said you can't make a pass at someone or indicate your interest in them, but, once they have communicated their lack of interest in reciprocating, or their desire not to get involved, it's time to knock it off. At the very least, if you persisted, you'd wind up being a big pain in the neck, and in other instances, such as a workplace situation, if you continued to pressure and persist, you might be crossing a legal line.

Being free from "Unwanted sexual advance" is an unrealistic and abusive standard.

It's definitely not "an unrealistic and abusive standard" in a workplace. A workplace can impose standards of dress, and conduct, that might be different than they are in other situations. A workplace isn't a singles bar, different standards of conduct apply

It's no wonder that you are unemployed.

This has absolutely nothing to do with "feminism"--lots of men don't want to be sexually harassed by a female in the workplace, particularly by a female boss, or a female who could affect their job, if they

Hell you wish to take the right away from women to be approach and accept or not accept the men.

No one has said you can't make a pass at someone or indicate your interest in them, but, once they have communicated their lack of interest in reciprocating, or their desire not to get involved, it's time to knock it off. At the very least, if you persisted, you'd wind up being a big pain in the neck, and in other instances, such as a workplace situation, if you continued to pressure and persist, you might be crossing a legal line.

Hell you wish to take the right away from women to be approach and accept or not accept the men.

When you can accurately interpret what I say, I will respond to you

The phrase "unwanted sexual advance" has a well understood meaning, but in this thread we have watched you use the words and then run from the meaning because you know that you will never get many people to agree with where you are trying to go.....not yet anyways. If you dont mean unwanted sexual advance then use different words.

No one has said you can't make a pass at someone or indicate your interest in them, but, once they have communicated their lack of interest in reciprocating, or their desire not to get involved, it's time to knock it off. At the very least, if you persisted, you'd wind up being a big pain in the neck, and in other instances, such as a workplace situation, if you continued to pressure and persist, you might be crossing a legal line.

Seems to me, I have defined what I meant by "unwanted"

If power comes in more than one guise, you will not hear Wolf discuss it. Instead, we learn from her and others that unwanted sexual advances demean and disempower the recipient, and being unwanted, should never have happened in the first place. Brandishing the phrase is thus the first step in extinguishing the behavior, soon to be forever purged from the repertoire of human mating conduct. Just to be clear, we're not talking here about cases of ongoing unwanted sexual advances—or threats, or quid pro quo demands—otherwise known as "sexual harassment," which should be subject to the most severe punishment, including loss of livelihood, property seizure, and potential incarceration. Here we're speaking strictly of the one-time unwanted advance, as in the Wolf-Bloom contretemps.
.
.
.
Indeed, the phrase "unwanted sexual advance" smuggles more than a few unexamined assumptions into the social conversation, and not only about sex and class. Even the wording itself is problematic—it seems to imply that the outcome of the advance should be known prior to the outcome occurring. But do we all wear our desires written in neon letters on our foreheads? Do we even know in advance what they are? Surely one is occasionally caught by surprise—unexpectedly propelled from a non-desiring state into a desiring one by something in the moment, or the air, or the wine. Can anyone really be expected to know ahead of time whether an advance is wanted or unwanted, when desire itself is not an entirely stable condition to begin with?
Possibly the coinage "unwanted sexual advance" is not such a useful addition to the social vocabulary of sex after all, particularly when the situations it's supposed to describe aren't reducible to a single dynamic. What human interaction is? Consider the two cases under discussion. One of the interesting contradictions of Wolf-and-Jones-style feminism is its apparent thralldom to the phallic mythos it's also so deeply offended by. Wolf describes becoming "sick with excitement" when Bloom agreed to read her poetry. Why? Exactly because he was a charismatic and famous guy, because she wanted his approval, and wanted to be found attractive (as she relates in a thinly fictionalized account of the episode in her memoir Promiscuities). And let's face it: The sexual privilege that accrues to Important Men accrues for exactly this reason.